Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with visual citation is crucial for ensuring the traceability and verifiability of MLLMs. However, current RAG and SFT-based methods struggle to achieve robust cross-modal reasoning, causing imprecise visual citations or decoupling between the citation and the generated answers. To address these limitations, we propose MCite-RL, a citation-enhanced agentic reinforcement learning framework designed for reliable multimodal RAG. MCite-RL introduces an Agentic Refinement module for visual citation that employs iterative retrieval, reasoning, and recursive cropping to progressively narrow the search space, transforming citation into a dynamic, evidence-driven reasoning process rather than a static step. Furthermore, we incorporate a Citation-enhanced Reward mechanism that integrates both process-level and outcome-level feedback within a reinforcement learning paradigm to jointly optimize answer accuracy and source traceability. Extensive experiments on benchmarks such as Wiki-VISA, FinRAGBench-V, and MMLongBench-Doc demonstrate that MCite-RL effectively achieves the joint optimization of citation precision and answer quality.
Converting structural framing plans into editable finite-element model drafts remains labor-intensive and prone to transcription error. Existing drawing-understanding systems for building components rely on task-specific trained neural detectors, and language-model agents in structural engineering operate on text or model data rather than the drawing itself. This paper presents, to the authors' knowledge, the first framework applying an agentic vision-language layer to structural component detection and model drafting from framing-plan PDFs, without task-specific detector training or fine-tuning. A deterministic stage extracts primitives, estimates scale by dimension-ratio consensus, recognizes five entity classes with a drafting grammar, and assembles an editable layout. The agentic stage proposes typed corrections constrained by deterministic candidates, operation-specific admission tests, change-level review, and fail-closed transactions. Evaluation used an author-generated benchmark of 100 plans: a development half that informed every rule revision, and a seed-disjoint held-out half generated after the rules froze, evaluated once. All reported scores are end-to-end results of the complete framework on the held-out half. Scale was estimated within 0.1% of the generator reference for every drawing. Recall and precision were 0.922/0.997 for columns, 0.886/0.990 for beams, 1.000/1.000 for walls, 1.000/1.000 for braces, and 1.000/0.964 for openings. A controlled study repeated two corruptions three times on three development drawings. Calibration passed all nine trials; member repair met every strict end-state predicate in five of nine. Guarded review corrected missed framing and false marks within explicit bounds. The held-out half shares the development generator, so the study excludes independently drafted plans, raster evaluation, analytical connectivity, and solver validation.